4 ms·

> I don't see an explicit governmental condonement of the contents of that link. > You still haven't made a case for why possessing such information should be

by chroma 11y ago

> I don't see an explicit governmental condonement of the contents of that link. > You still haven't made a case for why possessing such information should be a bona fide crime (as opposed to being evidence of a real crime). You've merely asserted it should be illegal, with only scary innuendo to back it up. SILEX makes it possible to enrich uranium in secret for mere millions of dollars. It was privately discovered, but the process was classified by the government. If the exact details spread, it could be a global catastrophe. I'm totally fine with this information being restricted, as the harm of censorship is outweighed by the risk of nuclear proliferation. The US government seems to agree. > So where are these trolls now, given they can act with impunity through TOR? They don't post links to child porn because such things aren't hosted on the open web. Right now, the worst things trolls can link to are disgusting or gory images. If the law was different, they could link to worse things. > The problem isn't being framed, it's the ridiculousness of strict-liability non-mens-rea possession, especially of something that can be so easily obtained. There are plenty of physical goods that meet the same criteria and are just as illegal. I think only a borderline anarchist would disagree with many of those laws. For example: Thanks to 3D printing, it is very easy to obtain a full-auto sear for an AR-15. Such a piece of metal is –by itself– completely harmless. It can't do anything dangerous unless it's installed into a compatible rifle. Yet mere possession of an unlicensed full-auto sear will get you up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. That's right: Possession of a tiny piece of metal is the difference between a completely legal existence and a decade in prison. And that has been the case in the US since 1934. When put that way, it may seem unfair. But that tiny piece of metal could easily be used to cause immense harm, and it has no other use. Just like some data. Now, if you're willing to bite the bullet and say that possession of full-auto sears should be legal, I'm fine with that. I'll disagree, but I'll admire your consistency. On the other hand: If you don't think such devices should be legal to possess, then I think your support for possession of arbitrary digital goods is rather hypocritical.

mindslight 11y ago
> If the exact details spread, it could be a global catastrophe. I'm totally fine with this information being restricted And yet such criminalization won't stop someone actually determined to use it. If your security relies on preventing the spread of readily-available information, you've already lost. Your argument only seems practical for this situation because the only entities in possession of said information are already doing the work to keep it secret. > Right now, the worst things trolls can link to are disgusting or gory images Or uh, illegal images they upload themselves (obfuscated enough to get around whatever secret programmatic filters the hosting sites have been forced to implement via "consent" decree), or non-linked data: urls. > Yet mere possession of an unlicensed full-auto sear will get you up to 10 years in prison Which obviously conflicts with the 2nd amendment, itself created with foresight of hysterical attempts to ban weapons. There's no constitutional amendment spelling out the right to own hammers, not because it isn't a natural right, but because the founders didn't envision a scenario of widespread hammer ownership being criminalized by a corrupt government (and hammers subsequently being needed to violently overthrow said government). I'm sure you can find many similar examples of possession being criminalized - it's the dumbest, most simplistic way to go after "bad people" (base tribalism) instead of the harder route of policing and prosecuting actual bad behavior (rule of law). That its application is a foregone conclusion merely shows how totalitarian our society has become.
- chroma 11y ago
  Well, that was interesting. I certainly can't call you inconsistent. Now I'm just curious: Is there any scenario in which you think possession of a physical or digital asset should result in imprisonment? That is: Is possession of a fuel-air bomb OK? My mere possessing it doesn't harm anyone, only my use of it would. What about possession of a nuclear weapon, or some device that could exterminate all life on earth? If information hazards[1] exist, would possessing them still be legal? If mind uploading becomes possible, should it be legal to run a million uploads in agony? After all, it's just data on your own hardware. I realize some of these scenarios seem far-fetched, but I'm trying to find the limits of your beliefs. It seems to me that laws regarding possession must be contingent on the possible harms allowed by physics and biology. If certain machines or pieces of information can be readily used to cause mass suffering, then the cost-benefit analysis suggests punishing those who possess them. To use an analogy: Possessing certain things is like brandishing a weapon. If you point a gun at someone, technically you haven't caused any physical harm. It's just that you're very likely to harm someone. There's even a decent chance you could cause harm by accident. So to with the possession of certain dangerous items. The danger might be more remote, but the potential harm might be far greater. That's the rationale for restriction. 1. http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm
  - mindslight 11y ago
    I've pondered this before in the context of 2A and nuclear weapons, and I concluded it ultimately comes down to stewardship. An individual can't cover the damage from accidental use of a nuclear weapon (nor the collateral damage from deliberate use). Likewise an apartment-dweller with conventional explosives. But an individual in a rural area has enough space to casually detonate explosives for fun, and damage from accidental detonation is limited to their property. The level of nuclear weapons is of course stretching the limit of our abstractions - eg USG didn't contain the fallout from various nuclear tests. Regulating possession should be solely based on what harms the possession itself causes, not hypothetical damages from the worst possible deliberate use. There are specific laws for those specific actions and even "conspiracy" etc for policing precrime. Contrast with the ongoing age-old pattern for inciting moral panic of myopically emphasizing an outgroup's artifacts (eg broomsticks and cats), and encouraging the panicked herd to fill in the worst possible action they can think of. Addressing the original subject, if we adjust the focus to the presumed action - "masturbating to pictures of children" - it's less ambiguously frightening, and more pathetic and needing of compassion/mental help. That's a saner framework for debating intervention in what individuals do behind closed doors. For "uploads in agony" - if this is possible how do you propose to stop it, short of destroying any powerful-enough computing device? I mean, I certainly hope it is not possible, or that most people personally realize it's wrong, or the ones who don't won't spend many resources on it. But if it does become a larger phenomenon, then I think our abstractions about morality will be lost to the general amorality of nature. We're currently only in a censorship renaissance due to negligent technical architectures based on centralizing protocols like HTTP/DNS. Information in general is not so easily contained, and when the (de)centralization pendulum finally swings back I hope this reality becomes undeniable to those mini-dictators residing in every democracy-addled mind.

by chroma 11y ago

mindslight 11y ago

> If the exact details spread, it could be a global catastrophe. I'm totally fine with this information being restricted And yet such criminalization won't stop someone actually determined to use it. If your security relies on preventing the spread of readily-available information, you've already lost. Your argument only seems practical for this situation because the only entities in possession of said information are already doing the work to keep it secret. > Right now, the worst things trolls can link to are disgusting or gory images Or uh, illegal images they upload themselves (obfuscated enough to get around whatever secret programmatic filters the hosting sites have been forced to implement via "consent" decree), or non-linked data: urls. > Yet mere possession of an unlicensed full-auto sear will get you up to 10 years in prison Which obviously conflicts with the 2nd amendment, itself created with foresight of hysterical attempts to ban weapons. There's no constitutional amendment spelling out the right to own hammers, not because it isn't a natural right, but because the founders didn't envision a scenario of widespread hammer ownership being criminalized by a corrupt government (and hammers subsequently being needed to violently overthrow said government). I'm sure you can find many similar examples of possession being criminalized - it's the dumbest, most simplistic way to go after "bad people" (base tribalism) instead of the harder route of policing and prosecuting actual bad behavior (rule of law). That its application is a foregone conclusion merely shows how totalitarian our society has become.

chroma 11y ago
Well, that was interesting. I certainly can't call you inconsistent. Now I'm just curious: Is there any scenario in which you think possession of a physical or digital asset should result in imprisonment? That is: Is possession of a fuel-air bomb OK? My mere possessing it doesn't harm anyone, only my use of it would. What about possession of a nuclear weapon, or some device that could exterminate all life on earth? If information hazards[1] exist, would possessing them still be legal? If mind uploading becomes possible, should it be legal to run a million uploads in agony? After all, it's just data on your own hardware. I realize some of these scenarios seem far-fetched, but I'm trying to find the limits of your beliefs. It seems to me that laws regarding possession must be contingent on the possible harms allowed by physics and biology. If certain machines or pieces of information can be readily used to cause mass suffering, then the cost-benefit analysis suggests punishing those who possess them. To use an analogy: Possessing certain things is like brandishing a weapon. If you point a gun at someone, technically you haven't caused any physical harm. It's just that you're very likely to harm someone. There's even a decent chance you could cause harm by accident. So to with the possession of certain dangerous items. The danger might be more remote, but the potential harm might be far greater. That's the rationale for restriction. 1. http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm
- mindslight 11y ago
  I've pondered this before in the context of 2A and nuclear weapons, and I concluded it ultimately comes down to stewardship. An individual can't cover the damage from accidental use of a nuclear weapon (nor the collateral damage from deliberate use). Likewise an apartment-dweller with conventional explosives. But an individual in a rural area has enough space to casually detonate explosives for fun, and damage from accidental detonation is limited to their property. The level of nuclear weapons is of course stretching the limit of our abstractions - eg USG didn't contain the fallout from various nuclear tests. Regulating possession should be solely based on what harms the possession itself causes, not hypothetical damages from the worst possible deliberate use. There are specific laws for those specific actions and even "conspiracy" etc for policing precrime. Contrast with the ongoing age-old pattern for inciting moral panic of myopically emphasizing an outgroup's artifacts (eg broomsticks and cats), and encouraging the panicked herd to fill in the worst possible action they can think of. Addressing the original subject, if we adjust the focus to the presumed action - "masturbating to pictures of children" - it's less ambiguously frightening, and more pathetic and needing of compassion/mental help. That's a saner framework for debating intervention in what individuals do behind closed doors. For "uploads in agony" - if this is possible how do you propose to stop it, short of destroying any powerful-enough computing device? I mean, I certainly hope it is not possible, or that most people personally realize it's wrong, or the ones who don't won't spend many resources on it. But if it does become a larger phenomenon, then I think our abstractions about morality will be lost to the general amorality of nature. We're currently only in a censorship renaissance due to negligent technical architectures based on centralizing protocols like HTTP/DNS. Information in general is not so easily contained, and when the (de)centralization pendulum finally swings back I hope this reality becomes undeniable to those mini-dictators residing in every democracy-addled mind.